Human electrophysiological examination of buildup of the precedence effect

Dimitrijevic, Andrew; Stapells, David R.

doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000223386.44081.ec

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in agreement with a series of studies on involuntary orienting of attention in the visual modality, showing that pop-out or prime stimuli occurring in the right visual hemifield have larger disturbing effects than those occurring in the left hemifield [19][20][21]. In addition, they also match with MMN data showing an advantage for processing auditory spatial information in the right compared with the left hemispace [22,23]. Taken together, our results support the view that the involvement of left and right brain regions in the control of automatic attention on the right hemispace provides a rightward bias for the behavioral influence of unexpected stimuli in right side of the environment [24].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Effects of sound location on visual task performance and electrophysiological measures of distraction

Corral

Escera

2008

NeuroReport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Novel sounds embedded in a repetitive stream of auditory stimuli impair performance of the visual task at hand. Parmentier et al. suggested that this distraction effect might be because of the shifting cost of moving attention from the task-irrelevant (auditory) to the task-relevant (visual) channel, or from their shifting of spatial locations. Here, the source location of the sounds in an audio-visual distraction paradigm was varied systematically (headphones and 0, -18, -72, 18, and 72 degrees), and the results revealed significant distracting effects of novel sounds occurring in the headphone and the right location conditions. This supports the assumption that in the behavioral cost observed in the audio-visual distraction paradigm a spatial shift of attention is involved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Effects of sound location on visual task performance and electrophysiological measures of distraction

Corral

Escera

2008

NeuroReport

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The auditory N1 response has also been shown to be modulated by selective attention (e.g., Hillyard, Hink, Schwent, & Picton, 1973;Woldorff et al, 1993). Reports regarding latency shifts are not as frequent, but, for example, the auditory N1 response has been shown to be delayed in repeated sound sequences (e.g., Dimitrijevic & Stapells, 2006;Sable, Low, Maclin, Fabiani, & Gratton, 2004).…”

Section: Simulations For the N1 Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used computer simulations to evaluate different procedures for measuring changes in the onset latency of a representative range of event-related components (the auditory and visual N1, P3, N2pc, and the frequency-related P3 difference wave). These procedures included several techniques to determine onset latencies combined with approaches using both single-participant average waveforms and jackknife-subsample average waveforms. In general, the jackknife-based approach combined with the relative criterion technique or combined with the fractional area technique (J.C. Hansen & S.A. Hillyard, 1980; S.J. Luck, 2005) provided the most accurate method and the greatest statistical power, with no inflation of Type I error rate.Descriptors: ERP latency, Jackknife, N1, P3, N2pc, Frequency-related P3Research using event-related potentials (ERPs) often focuses on differences in amplitudes as well as differences in latencies of ERP components. However, for both measurements there are several scoring methods, and quite often researchers have to decide rather arbitrarily which method might be most appropriate. In this article we compare several methods for determining ERP latency differences. To evaluate the methods we ran computer simulations based on data of five ERP components: the visual N1, the auditory N1, the P3 (hereafter used to mean the P3b), the N2pc, and the frequency-related P3 component (infrequent minus frequent difference wave).These five components were chosen because they are very different and representative of a broad range of components, as is apparent from the following brief review of these components. The N1 components (visual, auditory) are relatively early components, strongly influenced by physical properties of the stimulus. They are characterized by a clear onset and a sharply increasing amplitude, but clearly reflect different underlying neural generators. In contrast, the P3 is a late component that is relatively insensitive to the physical properties of the stimulus (with the exception of tone intensity; see Covington & Polich, 1996), but is influenced by probabilities, expectations, and resource allocation (see Johnson, 1986). Quite often the P3 does not show a clear onset, and its peak latency is difficult to determine because the component has a wide temporal extension without a sharp peak. The N2pc and frequency-related P3, for their part, are measured from difference waves that are obtained by subtracting ERP waveforms computed at different electrode sites or at same electrode sites but in different experimental conditions. The N2pc is an index of the allocation of visualspatial attention and is isolated by subtracting the ERP at posterior electrode sites ipsilateral to an attended item from the ERP at the corresponding contralateral electrode site, whereas the frequency-related P3 is isolated by subtracting the ERP elicited by frequent targets from the ERP elicited by infrequent targets.For all components, researchers are often interested in estimating the latency differences a...

show abstract

“…Two earlier studies that addressed the topic met some, but not all, of these conditions (Dimitrijevic and Stapells, 2006;Spierer et al, 2009). Unambiguous interpretation of ERP results requires that both the test sounds and the immediately preceding sounds be identical on trials when the listener does and does not report hearing the lag sound as a separate source.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulations of listeners’ echo perception are reflected in event-related potentials

Sanders

Zobel²,

Freyman³

et al. 2011

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To gain information from complex auditory scenes, it is necessary to determine which of the many loudness, pitch, and timbre changes originate from a single source. Grouping sound into sources based on spatial information is complicated by reverberant energy bouncing off multiple surfaces and reaching the ears from directions other than the source's location. The ability to localize sounds despite these echoes has been explored with the precedence effect: Identical sounds presented from two locations with a short stimulus onset asynchrony (e.g., 1-5 ms) are perceived as a single source with a location dominated by the lead sound. Importantly, echo thresholds, the shortest onset asynchrony at which a listener reports hearing the lag sound as a separate source about half of the time, can be manipulated by presenting sound pairs in contexts. Event-related brain potentials elicited by physically identical sounds in contexts that resulted in listeners reporting either one or two sources were compared. Sound pairs perceived as two sources elicited a larger anterior negativity 100-250 ms after onset, previously termed the object-related negativity, and a larger posterior positivity 250-500 ms. These results indicate that the models of room acoustics listeners form based on recent experience with the spatiotemporal properties of sound modulate perceptual as well as later higherlevel processing.

show abstract

Human electrophysiological examination of buildup of the precedence effect

Cited by 10 publications

References 24 publications

Effects of sound location on visual task performance and electrophysiological measures of distraction

Effects of sound location on visual task performance and electrophysiological measures of distraction

Measurement of ERP latency differences: A comparison of single‐participant and jackknife‐based scoring methods

Manipulations of listeners’ echo perception are reflected in event-related potentials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About